AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
In the present civil writ petition, following prayers have been made:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to exempt the entire land of the petitioner under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
With a further prayer that the land which has been left from acquisition, the entire land of the petitioner may be acquired as per Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by giving him alternative site/plot of the same size. During the pendency of this writ petition the dispossession of the petitioner may kindly be stayed.”
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-State has submitted that in the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as “1894 Act”) was issued on 22.03.1990 and father of the petitioner had filed objections under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act and after considering these objections, the constructed area in khasra no.538(0B-1B-0B) was released. It is thus apparent that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was aware of the proceedings and thereafter the notification under Section 6 of the 1894 Act was issued on 19.03.1991 acquiring the land, which is in question now, apart from the other land for the public purpose namely for the development and utilization as residential, commercial, institutional and maintenance of open space in Gurugram. It is submitted that award in the present case was passed on 16.03.1993 and the petitioner had taken the compensation through cheque no.905876 dated 09.04.1993 for an amount of Rs.8,83,454.75 and through cheque no.906249 dated 15.09.1993 for an amount of Rs.3,28,877/-. It is submitted that the petitioner had also filed reference petition under Section 18 of the 1894 Act and that vide rapat roznamcha no.981 dated 18.07.2011, the possession of the land acquired was taken. It is further submitted that the present writ petition was filed in the year 2016 after a delay of 23 years from the date of passing of the award. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and others reported as (2020) 8 SCC 129 and this Court in the case of Gopal Singh Rathi and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-13333-2016 decided on 23.07.2026.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to move representation to the respondents-State by invoking the provisions of Section 101-A of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the 2013 Act”). It is submitted that the said aspect would still be open, even in case the petitioner give up his challenge to the notifications and the award. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is in physical possession of the property in question till date and he along with other family members are residing in the same and has further submitted that in pursuance of the objection under Section 5-A of the 1894 Act, a part of the house was released being B class construction. It is further submitted that the competent authority of respondent no.1 be directed to consider and decide the said representation after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-State has submitted that in case the petitioner is giving up his challenge to the notifications and the award and in case he files a representation requesting the State to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act, then, the said representation would be considered and decided after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of four months from the date of submission of the said representation.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner and respondent no.1-State, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition as far as the challenge to the notifications and the award is concerned, the petitioner is permitted to file a representation requesting the State Government to invoke the power under Section 101-A of the 2013 Act within a period of one month from today and in case any such representation is filed, the competent authority of respondent no.1 is directed to consider and decide the same after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the said representation.
It is made clear that the said representation would only be filed on the aspect of Section 101-A of the 2013 Act and this Court has not opined on the merits of the same and the same would be considered independently in accordance with law.